Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent was contracted to clean Applicants rental property / Applicant claims cleaning was not completed to an acceptable standard / Applicant claimed full refund / Held: reasonable care and skill must be taken when providing a service / Respondent has not cleaned with reasonable care and skill / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $128.50 / Filing fee claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant's car went into limp mode and was towed to Respondent for diagnosis and repair / Respondent ordered to replace all six fuel injectors / Vehicle went into limp mode again and was taken to a different repair shop where Applicant was advised that it is unusual for all six fuel injectors to be replaced / Applicant claims refund of four injectors / Held: no evidence given by Applicant that replacing all six fuel injectors was wrong / Claim dismissed.

Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent to build new home / Applicant noticed defects in house prior to settlement and these were not remedied by Respondent to Applicant's satisfaction / Applicant claims $30,000 for the cost of repair / Held: Building contractor must remedy defects they are notified of within a reasonable time / Some defects claimed by Applicant were within acceptable tolerance within MBIE Guide / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,400 / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car in parts from Respondent / Applicant engaged Respondent to do chroming work on some parts and paid $3,925.10 / Applicant unhappy with work carried out and seeks refund / Respondent counterclaimed $2,860.55 for storage and freight / Held: expert evidence provides Respondent did carried out work with reasonable care and skill / Applicant not entitled to refund / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim withdrawn.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased HRV system and installation from Respondent / Applicant reported three different faults to Respondent  / Respondent remedied first two faults and booked technician to remedy third fault / Applicant subsequently cancelled appointment and requested Respondent to replace entire system or remove it and refund cost / Respondent offered to replace entire system but Applicant rejected offer and requested refund / Respondent rejected refund / Applicant claimed $4,800.00 from Respondent / Held: failure to comply with acceptable quality guarantee not substantial / Applicant not entitled to reject system and obtain refund / Claim dismissed.

Nuisance / Applicant engaged Respondent company to cut down trees at his holiday home / On returning to his property four months later he discovered damage to his water tank / Applicant claimed Respondent caused the damage / Failure to remedy damage in a reasonable time meant the tank suffered more damage and needed to be replaced / Applicant claimed $10,000.00 to replace the tank / Held: Applicant can provide no evidence that Respondent caused original damage / Respondent can therefore not be liable for the cost of replacing the tank / Claim dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal - s162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Issue was whether Applicant suffered medical misadventure. Insufficient grounds established to sustain application for leave to appeal. Not established judge had made error of law. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased property from Respondents at auction / Applicants discovered leak in shower / Applicants claim Respondents misrepresented condition of house / Held: there was a misrepresentation by silence and there was a duty to disclose the leaking issue / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $22,500 / claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant did not enjoy flat sharing with Respondent and moved out / Applicant bullied by Respondent / Applicant claims for rent paid and compensation for stress suffered / Held: Applicant denied some benefits of flat sharing contract / No award for general damages for stress / Applicant partially successful / Respondent to pay Applicant $300.

Claim for work-related gradual process injury - s 30 and schedule 2 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appeal of decision declining claim for personal injury caused by a work-related gradual process and declining to fund a K x-ray emission spectroscopy. Court found not sufficient evidence to conclude Appellant's cancers were caused by exposure to TEL/TML or any other toxic chemical. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

Contract / Applicant hired car from Respondent / Car hit by third party while parked in a car park / Applicant passed details of third party to Respondent for insurance purposes / Respondent advised Applicant was required to pay $2,000 excess / Applicant believed excess amount was refundable but Respondent informed Applicant it was not / Respondent also paid additional $539.29 for repair of the car / Applicant claimed $2,000 as damages / Held: Applicant entitled to refund of $2,000 once third party liability was established / Respondent to pay Applicant $2,000 / Claim allowed.

Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / Property Boundaries / Respondents and Applicant share property boundary / Applicant seeks new fence and seeks Respondents pay half / Applicants claim cost of surveying / Respondents claim new fence unnecessary /Held: FA requires an adequate fence between properties / Cost of fence will be split between parties / FA only covers costs of surveying and cost analyses if both parties consent to it / Applicants unable to recover surveying cost / Respondents to pay Applicant $4,286.63 / Claim partially upheld.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent for $3500 / Respondent said car was safe and reliable / Afterwards Respondent discovered car needed significant work / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented car's condition / Applicant claimed $3500 from Respondent / Held: Respondent’s statement that car was safe and reliable was a misrepresentation / Misrepresentation induced Applicant to purchase car / Car needed significant repairs / Respondent ordered to pay $1500 given condition and age of car / Claim granted.